Iranian Protests

Of all the world's people, the ones that I find hardest to understand are the Iranians. I knew many in the 1980's. They had a fervor about something but I couldn't tell what. I would have asked, but many seemed angry. I also knew some who disagreed with the fervent ones. They acted as if they were in danger. I had to be careful what I said to them with other Iranians present. I am not discreet and intrigues confuse me, so I held my tongue.

Intrigues and secrecy seemed to surround the Iranian students whom I met at the University of Washington. Many were also gifted at an oriental sort of diplomatic circumlocution. Only a few who were mostly science and engineer students seemed untroubled by the changes in their country. Probably those few were from wealthy families or had established ties in this country and did not have to return if things got bad at home.

Anyway, there is again fighting in the streets. I hope that we are aiding the dissidents, in very discreet ways of course. Our government should make statements of support for their cause. They are fighting for freedom, which we can understand and which all people deserve. Perhaps the Iranian students that I knew in the past were troubled by the fact that they were being torn between an anti-American faction and a pro-American faction. The anti-American faction was radically socialist and Islamic, an unattractive alternative. The pro-American faction represented the pre-revolutionary status under the Shah, was also unatractive. They had just successfully ousted The Shah because they wanted change. Trouble was, they didn't seem to like the change they were getting.

Update of goings on in Iran:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091226/D9CR03OG0.html

Senate Health Bill: Dead or Alive?

The current bill and the current Democrat conception of government healthcare policy does not have the support of most Americans according to most polls. There is so much wrong, undemocratic, and un-American with both that not a single Republican Senator will vote for it. What is good about the bill is chiefly its measures to try to reform Medicare, to put it on a financially sound footing. These may be sound measures and probably not what Republicans would propose but they may help. Why weren't they part of a separate Medicare reform bill? What, if anything else, is good about the bill could have been proposed separately to help reform the current state of government healthcare entitlements.

There is much in the bill that is an affront to the tradition of economic freedom of this nation. There is much in the bill that will degrade medical innovation that has made our healthcare the best in the world. There is much that takes away our choice and costs us more through taxes and various fees and penalties. The bill essentially forces more insurance on many Americans than they want. Of course they will use it by demanding more services since they will be paying for them. This will tend to strain the system and raise costs. It will require a massive, tightly controlled bureaucratic rationing. This is where things usually break down, as with price controls. By rationing, I mean the usual economic definition of forced allocation of a service that does not have a free market to control it by the mechanism of price. This will mean less care provided and more people going without. Isn't it ironic that a supposedly free government provided service will result in less care for more people. That's what happens with all goods and services in a socialist system.

Most conservatives commentators think that the bills is more about a vast increase in government power over the lives of all Americans, making us more dependant upon government. Since Democrats have become the party of big government, it is chiefly a grab for more political power. Votes for the bill have been secured by huge taxpayer funded gifts to the states of Democrat Senators who claim to be undecided.

There is never any improvement with socialism. It is and has always been true that American greatness has been the direct result of our liberty. I predict that the bill will not pass. There has to be among the Democrats at lease one person of integrity who will look to the wishes of their constituents if for no other reason and vote no. There may even be one or two or a few who realise that government provided control does not improve our lot. Eventually, it makes any problem greater and creates more and more difficulties in all areas of society. Eventually, it fails. It may be our fate to learn the lesson that hard way, but I certainly hope not.

Obama Wall Street Prescription: Virtual Ownership

The current economic recession/depression was clearly the result of multifaceted government intervention in and regulation of business. However, BHO is blaming Wall Street, which is always an acceptable scapegoat. Hitler used it, only he called them the Jew bankers. Wall Street of course doesn't seem to have a clue either that they are in a public relations propaganda fight. The bottom line is that BHO will use the concept of 'Wall Street' as an excuse for his next big government coup. Any proposal from the current administration and congress will not be 'consumer protection' as they claim. It will be government control of what is currently private finance. But the country and congress is dumb and numb. We have lost or are on the verge of losing the auto industry, healthcare, mortgage lending, energy, and pretty much all unionized trades (which were mostly gone already) to the control of the all-powerful state. The rest should be easy for the totalitarians.

We are witnessing the fall of capitalism. From there, our rights as a free people will dissolve with hardly a murmur from the serfs. After the first death, there is no other.

More Global Warming, Emperor still Naked

For radio talk show junkies, there has been plenty of Global Warming discussion lately. There is not much to add to the incessant questioning of what seems like the mass-insanity of the Man Made Global Warming movement (MMGW). However, tonight on Coast To Coast, there was a discussion of the data. Trouble was, without knowing how the data is used in the theory, there is no way of knowing if the fudged data is significant. Of course, as aforesaid ad infinitum at this site, the warmies have not given us a definitive mathematical statement of their theory, so how can we judge? The Coast to Coast guest also calls into question the validity of computer 'models' to arrive at valid conclusions. He also mentions that the same financial brokers who made a mess with the mortgage derivatives, will be in charge of trading carbon credits. Since this would involve billions of dollars, don't we have the right to question and to know? He might also have mentioned that is was computer models that concluded the mortgage derivatives had extremely little risk of default problems. It's been said before: garbage in, garbage out. With global warming it appears that there was garbage in, so don't they need to show us explicitly why it isn't garbage out?

One of the famous studies of CO2 in the atmosphere were the measurements made in Hawaii that gave rise to the MMGW theory. For no reason that they could explain, the CO2 concentrations were rising so they kept up the measurements through the present. The increase was from approximately 325 parts per million to approximately 385 parts per million from 1960 through 2009. My first naive question would be, is that really enough to make any difference? After all, the Green House Effect hypothesis was born to explain warming of the early earth, when CO2 concentrations were .6 to .7 million parts per million. That's about 2,170 times as much as at present. That's a big difference to extrapolate any conclusions of the original hypothesis to the present day.

Albert Einstein was concerned that he was asking the world to believe the theory of relativity without his being able to proof it. This bothered him because he was a real scientist who realised that without proof science would become useless speculation. He offered three experiments that could be performed to prove that his theory was wrong. At the time we did have the technology to perform the experiments. Since then, Relativity's predictions were found to be essentially correct. Einstein acted as the devil's advocate for his own theory. On the contrary, the so-called scientists of global warming censor any dissenting views and are very defensive of their theory. If truth was their goal, they should be happy to listen to dissenters. They should insist upon having a devil's advocate. (A term that originated with the Catholic Church's practice of appointing someone to research a candidate for sainthood and to argue why he or she is not worthy of canonization.)

Why would supposedly intelligent world leaders expend trillions of their people's resources based upon the word of these disreputable so-called scientists? Instead of listening to the politicians in Copenhagen, they should listen to a different Dane, Hans Christian Anderson, who said the emperor has no clothes.

To mention one last questionable claim: Man is causing melting of Arctic ice. I read in 1421, The Year that China Discovered America, that 580 years ago, the Chinese sailed around the north coast of Greenland. It must have been melting then and there was little human-generated greenhouse gasses then. Also, while reading about my ancestors, the northern Indian
tribes, I found that at the time of early European exploration, the past warming was known to the indigenous people. It was their belief that melting of the ice disrupted the Eskimo whaling. As a result the Eskimos moved south where they ran into my relatives who engaged in warfare with the Eskimos ever since. (My apologies to J. D. Salinger)

My conclusion has long been that Al Gore and his compadres are fools and/or thieves, at any rate their proposals are very dangerous. /See the first post of this blog which consists of the whole story of The Emperor's New Clothes. /

A Few Photos from Western Washington State

Dubai Leads the Way

Dubai, which is essentially an independent city state in the United Arab Emirates is experiencing severe economic troubles. Why would that be? It is a beautiful place, in part because of the vast government and government related investment in infrastructure and other public building, including the creation of a whole new island. It's apparently hard to walk down the wide new sidewalks without bumping into a fabulous palace-like structure. Dubai is, after all, one of the fabulously rich oil nations on the Arabian Sea (or Persian Gulf if you prefer).

Maybe the vast 'investment' in infrastructure is part of the problem. Those fabulous palaces are apparently for the most part vacant. This situation is similar to the financial panic of 1837 in this country. Free market economists have blamed that on over investment in infrastructure. This had been spurred on by the inflation of the central bank before Andy Jackson was able to close it down. (He was the first one to abolish the Fed.) Like FDR, Barack Hussein Obama's economic theorizing says that 'investment' by the government in infrastructure and related projects is just what we need. Actually it is not what we need but I do not blame the president for not knowing the unknowable. That is why the market, without government intervention, is the only mechanism for deciding what needs to be produced to satisfy society's most urgent needs. If you do not understand that, I have a bridge to nowhere that you might be interested in.

Krugman Speaks (in His Native Tongue)

In his column appearing in the Seattle Times today, Paul Krugman says that the usual suspects (i.e. conservatives) will go wild if there is progress at the Copenhagen global warming conclave. He also thinks there will be cries that this is a vast scientific conspiracy which will destroy jobs and economic growth. In fact conservatives have been a little wild and more that a little angry. They have lately been wild with enthusiasm that the recent "climate-gate" revelations show that there is indeed a vast conspiracy that is finally being exposed. They have also been angry that such a hoax continues to be perpetrated against the citizens of this country and of the world. For myself, I am somewhat numb. I have seen too much of the ignorance of those who are the willing victims of this hoax to feel much outrage anymore. I still believe that global warming ranks in the top ten in all the history of tyranny against the mind of man. Satan in the Garden being number one and Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and a few like minded others vying for the other top spots. Unfortunately, for the same reasons that Mr. Krugman is optimistic, I am growing pessimistic.

Of course, Mr. Krugman is guilty of advancing and perpetuating egregious violence against reason, but I do not blame him. He is locked into a mind set that has hopelessly befuddled his thinking (related to "Keyneseism"). He advances several arguments in favor of the economic benefits that would accrue to us if we adopted a policy of cap-and-trade to fight global warming. To be generous to him, his thesis is probably better stated as something like, "cap-and-trade would cause far less decline than has been claimed by its detractors." It is a little difficult to say if maybe he does think there could be a net gain when he states that businesses will, "be able to increase their profits if they can burn less carbon." Actually, he means that they will mitigate their losses under cap-and-trade by "burning" less carbon. The only ones to profit will be those in the marketing of the carbon credits, i.e. the tax collectors

In any event, in his reasoning he falls prey to one of the most pervasive economic fallacies, the fallacy of the broken window. This was named by Bastiat and referenced by Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson. The Nobel Laureate, Mr. Krugman claims that there can be economic gains by investment in development of various ways to emit less greenhouse gas. This is like the investment that Bastiat talks about to repair the broken window. The manufactures and the installer will all benefit by the "investments" made in repairing the broken window. They will spend their new gains, thus stimulation the economy. Therefore would it not be beneficial to break more, of even all windows? Especially, as claimed by Mr. K, at a time of economic downturn? The answer is: No.


The reason for this is not difficult to discern. The resources that go into the repair of the window would have been used for something else if the window had not been broken. If for some reason, no windows were broken for a year, we would experience an upsurge in the production of other economic goods. Perhaps the capitol, labor, and natural resources used in the production and installation of windows would go to the building of new houses. (The exact composition of the new goods would depend upon the what purchasers in the market demanded, for the consumer is king in the unimpeded market.) If more windows are broken, we cannot say what would be lost for we can never know what might have been. That so few can see this simple fact is what causes my pessimism.

With the case of global warming, the atmosphere is what is broken, according to Al Gore and the warmies. Much of the scarce recources of planet earth have to go to stopping the damage to the atmosphere, according to them. In the opinion of the conservative wing, we do not even get a new window, since the atmosphere is not really broken and our efforts will not fix anything.

Now Mr. K also says that to believe that Man Made Global Warming is a hoax, one would have to believe in a vast scientific conspiracy. That may be so. Yet to believe as Mr. K does, one would have to believe in a conspiracy of all the fossil fuel users around the globe. He says that we can reduce emissions at relatively low cost by, "improved insulation, more efficient appliances, more fuel efficient cars and trucks, greater use of solar, wind, and nuclear power and much, much more." All we need is the economic incentive of cap-and-trade to find and develop all these new ways. However I would point out that we already have the incentive of $70 to $100 per gallon oil. I would think that, unless there is some vast conspiracy among oil users to keep using oil, we would already be expending vast amounts of resources to use less. Yet petroleum, coal, natural gas, and firewood sill provide maybe 70% of the world energy needs. If significant use of alternatives and conservation had "a relatively low cost" why aren't they here now?

According to economists, which I now perceive Mr. K is not, the answer to that question is a little more subtle and involves the concept of economic decisions being made at the margin, and diminishing returns. Suffice it to say, that even common sense allows us to say that all decisions involve a trade-off between alternative actions. Whatever those trade-offs are, they cannot be as cost-free as the cap-and-traders want us to believe. I really don't know how much solar energy development would costs, but if there would be a great return to low cost efforts in that direction, it seems that we would have a lot more of it now.

If the schemes of the warmies come to fruition, those of us not among the elite architects of the conspiracy, will not like the result. However, if we are so ignorant as to be deceived by the likes to Al Gore and Paul Krugman, then we were literally made to be sold.

Global Warming Non-Debate Continues

There is so much to find fault with in the stance of man-made-global-warming [MMGW] advocates (warmies) that it is astounding that so little notice is taken of those faults. Let me reiterate a few:

1) The proponent of a policy has the burden of establishing a case for the adoption of their policy. This is particularly true of a major policy change like cap-and-trade, which would significantly increase the cost of our most important fuel sources. Instead of making the case, they ask that we accept on authority alone, the conclusions of scientists. They have never simply and clearly explained either their MMGW theory or their Cap-and-trade proposal, much less made their prime fascia case.

2) Unlike the claim made by proponents, there is not a consensus among scientist that MMGW is a concern. Unfortunately, the government bodies that wield the most political weight in matters of science seem to have been co-opted by the warmies. They will not let the dissenters be heard. They discredit them and the publications in which dissenting views have been published.

3) The internet, being thus far free of government control, does give dissenters a voice. An interesting website that I linked to in an earlier post (and which I will check on) offers several scientific arguments against MMGW. One argument states that whereas it it true that CO2 absorbs and reradiates heat radiation, thus returning to earth heat that would be lost, it absorbs only heat radiated in specific wavelengths. (What wave lengths and under what conditions co2 absorbs radiation and what it does with the heat thus absorbed would be part of the theory that the proponents should be more fully explaining, but which they do not.) The website in question calculates the heat lost due to this process and concludes that even if there was enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all of the radiation within the given wavelengths, it would not have a significant affect on climate. (Perhaps the proponents have ways of explaining their way around this but they will not say, except that their computer model says that the result will be warming, a LOT of warming, we better really be scared-- and that they say is their scientific opinion.)

4) Eventhough he theory of the proponents is never fully stated (even to a first approximation), they do (or at least did initially) offer empirical evidence of recent warming in support of their theory. This breaks dwon in two ways. a) their methods of measurement have been called into question. Measurements made near cities, for example, are usually higher, as cities grow then the temperatures will increase. Therefore, many of their results taken near cities were merely confirmations of urban growth. (There are other problems with their measurements too.); b) Most temperature measurements , even those of proponents, show that in the very recent past, 15 to 20 years, temperature have gone down. This was while atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased. (This is one of the things they tried to lie about)

5) The Theory of MMGW via CO2 production, (which is the most important part of the theory for public policy) does not explain how the relatively small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could have a significant affect. (This could be considered a part of objection #2) Even with the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere (which measurements they project by questionable, indirect means to times before measurements were taken), the concentrations are far below 1% of the total atmospheric gasses. This is in comparison to the atmosphere of the early days of planet earth, which other scientist have long told us was about 60% CO2. Connected to this, is the argument that it is the warmer earth that causes the CO2 increases, not the other way around. Dissenters have graphed the changes and they claim that the CO2 increases followed the warming, not the other way around. Again, many details of the theory could be more rationally discussed if they would tell us just what is in their computer model (and what is left out). As it is their model is a black box: we aren't told what goes on inside. This is because, no doubt we are mostly just not as smart as Al Gore and the rest of them. (Prince Charles of Great Britain is apparently another of the hyper intelligent warmies.)

6) An objection to the Cap-and-Trade scheme is that it would not bring about much reduction in the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere anyway. If CO2 really is causing global warming or if something else is causing warming (such as cyclical changes in the sun's output), there may be nothing we can do to reverse it. Therefore, instead of imposing trillions of dollars of burdens on the world economy, which would leave us with virtually no resources for other remedies, we should be spending our money and time on something that would help. The Maldive Islands is understandably concerned about possible rising sea levels, since most of the country is three feet above sea level. Besides lobbying for cap-and-trade (because A. Grore says to), they also created a new island and built a six foot wall around it. Building dikes would be a more efficient use of resources that capping and trading. (I must say that cap-and-trade should win an award as the most astoundingly stupid idea ever. It is obviously a thinly disguised method of obtaining the results that environmentalists have wanted all along, which is a word with much diminished industry. They do not say how we will support ourselves without fossil fuel, the most efficient form of energy discovered to date, with the possible exception of nuclear, which they don't want either.)

7) One of my favorite objections (as I sit here with 10 degree weather outside.) The warmies do not address the advantages to some, if not most areas of the world, that would result from warming. This could easily outweigh the unwanted consequences, and at any rate, should be calculated into the cost-benefit analysis.

8) contiued

The Only Good Health Bill Is a Dead Health Bill

The major media continues to the report that some Democrats have problems with the Health Care Bill before the Senate and they are working hard to resolve their differences. I also heard media blurbs that the Republicans are "concerned about cuts to medicare," or "think the bill will be a job killer." The major media also keeps playing Democrat Senator Harry Ried's comment that he has not yet heard of a single statement from Republicans indicating that they are willing to help with the bill. (This is because Republicans want sick people to die, don't you know.) Actually, Republicans have had many health care proposals, some of which were even adopted in the current House and Senate bills. The current bill however is unacceptable for many reasons, mostly because it affords the government too much control. Since government control is the essence of Democrat's long-held aspirations for health care 'reform,' it is obviously impossible for conscientious Republicans to support it.

I have heard even Fox Radio report the story this way in their top of the hour news segments. The press should report that the health bill is a creation of the Democrat Party, embodying many aspects of government control and totally devoid of free market mechanisms. As such, they need not pretend that there are just a few differences that need to be ironed.

Global Warming Exposed at Last: Zero Integrity

The hacked emails of the global warming elite (CRU) discuss strategy to hide negative evidence and maintain the global warming scam. So far the only defense they proffer is that the emails were illegally obtained. The emails purportedly are to and from so-called scientists desiring to deceive a gullible populace into believing that global warming is an eminent danger AND is caused by human activity. The purpose: a vehicle for political purposes, one world government, and population control (not to mention their rake-off from the several trillion dollars of redirected (wasted) world resources.) (See examiner .com)


Dr. Tim Ball, much abused global warming denier, has the story. (He is an atmospheric scientist and climate and energy specialist from the University of Winnipeg.) His opinions have long been censured by politicians and so-called scientists.


Will they hide the evidence of the monumental deception plan? They will try.

Thanksgiving: Time for Reflection and Best of on the Radio

Thanksgiving guests gave me the opportunity to keep up with liberal thought by listening to friends and relatives. My brother, who supported BHO because of the bonuses received by corporate CEO, now favors government healthcare. His reasoning is that he can get free healthcare if he quits his job or is laid off. He pointed out how the only construction going on is government projects and how his heating oil delivery job is slow because few are ordering oil for their home. I told him there is little private construction BECAUSE of all the government 'stimulus' spending. Economic resources (usually referred to as Land. Labor, and Capital) are all going to the government. The government, with its money printing press, can always outbid the private sector, especially in economic slowdowns. We need to let prices adjust (mostly downward) for there to be economic recovery. BHO is trying to reinflate the bubble. This has never worked but that does not stop BHO from trying. But yes he can't.

With socialized medicine, I have tried to tell him there's no free lunch. If we cannot individually afford healthcare, how can we afford it collectively. It will turn out as the case of the store door-greeter who gets minimum wage. He is so glad when he hears that the minimum wage is being raised. As soon as it becomes law, he can't understand why the store tells him they don't need a door-greeter anymore. The lesson: you never get what the government promises. Government programs are like the devil's empty promises. They lead us from the true path and never provide what they promise. Again we not only have economic theory to guide us but we also have recent history. Socialism never works and trying again will give us the same disastrous results.

I have already said all this in earlier posts. Another feature of the holidays is that the radio talk show often have 'Best Of' programs. Mark Levin again recaped his report on the four government actions that caused the mortgage/banking collapse last year. He recps the various laws passed, the government agencies empowered, the corruption and growth of government involvement. He makes an excellent case. The Democrat response to these facts is 1) ignore, 2) talking point: not a significant factor because: -------- (fill in the lie). 3) it was cooperate greed, or 4) Ha Ha, there was plenty of blame to go around... followed by solution: MORE government involvement. So typical and of course supported by the lame stream press (as Sarah Palin calls the GCP).

I thought that the latest banking crisis was caused by the government. This was confirmed, I thought, when it came out the Freddy Mac and Fannie May owned or controlled over half of the country's mortgages. I thought that it was obvious for even the biggest ignoramus to understand when the talk shows played multiple speeches of President Bush, John McCain, and other Republicans warning of the pending problems with Freddy and Fanny. They then played the tape of Senator Dodd and other Democrats arguing that it was no problem. The Problem to anyone with eyes to see: BHO, Nancy Pulosi, Harry Ried, Christopher Dodd, Chucky Schumer, and the interventionist policies of the current democrat party.

Profiles in Courage?

Senator Ben Nelson (Nebraska) is a liar, a fraud, and a hypocrite. He says that he opposes the healthcare bill but will vote for opening the debate. This is the procedural vote that the Democrats and BHO need to get around the 60 vote majority in the US Senate and Senator Nelson knows it. He thinks that he can lie to his constituents who he knows oppose the bill. That's why I refer to them as the Democrat party not the "Democratic Party." There is nothing democratic about them. Mark Levin clearly states this. Does Judge Napolitano? (That is of Brian and Judge talk show fame.) No, I do not think so because he seems to have a large blind spot when it comes to trusting Democrats and taking their statements at face value once in awhile.

Probably no Democrat Senator will oppose the healthcare bill because they are on the take. The fix is in. BHO and the Central Committee of the Party will threaten them and/or promise the world. (Cf. Senator Laundry of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.) They will point out that with their approval already down, they won't be reelected anyhow and they will promise either hundreds of millions for their state or a cushy, prestigious job for themselves. So even if they oppose it and have promised to vote against it they may end of voting for the healthcare bill anyway. It would take real courage to oppose the Central Committee (Axilrod, Emanuel, BHO, etc.).

See Mark Levin Show web site for phone numbers of key senators to call. We need them to vote no.

Sunday Up-Date: More Government, Some Backlash

Is a little common sense really too much to ask? Economics, rightly practiced, does not require a lot beyond common sense: leave commerce alone. Foreign policy is also probably not all that tough either: talk softly, etc. Physical security of the population, within the limits of constitutionally protections, should not be so difficult either. A few days ago, a major in the U.S. Army, an avowed islamist, went on a shooting spree at Ft. Hood, Texas and killed or wounded dozens of people, mostly his fellow service members. His history, views, and associates were known to army authorities. In spite of that knowledge, he remained in his post as a psychiatrist at the Army Hospital. In that capacity, he could have been a useful asset to enemy intelligence. In addition to that, he had made comments regarding his approval of suicide bombing and other terrorist activity in defence of islam. Army security must certainly have had a file on him. Next time maybe political correctness won't prevent preemptive action. (Incidental, Major Hasan was given a small roll in the transition of President Obama into office.) (See: PC Sickness killed Our Soldiers, World Net Daily, 11/08/09)

Besides showing an extreme lack of sense for not acting sooner to get an obviously mentally disturbed individual out of the armed service, it is an insult to the patriotic and law abiding Muslims who live in all the communities of this country. It is as if the government authorities are saying: "This behavior is allowable because he is a Muslim and it is not out of the ordinary for Muslims." More to the point, I have heard, even in my small circle of sensible acquaintances, calls for such things as Japanese style internment camps for Muslims, at least for more visible ones. This would be a travesty of justice and a poor example coming from the land of the free. I have often seen government officials, driven by the public under the influence of mob mentality, adopt policies that punish the innocent in the name of security. That certainly happens everyday around the globe. I do not like seeing it done here in big things or small.

The Election

I have again been derelict in my journalistic duties. With elections tomorrow, I have not endorsed anyone or anything. To tell the truth, I have seldom taken an interest in electoral politics. There has seldom been a candidate or issue to stimulate my excitement or interest. The only exceptions I can think of were Ronald Reagan, for whom I volunteered at the local offices to help on phones. The other exception was the last presidential election and my interest was chiefly in opposing BHO, and of course in supporting Sarah Palin.

In our upcoming local election in Pierce County, State of Washington, I have only a few favorites.

James Postma, who was at the Puyallup tea party last Friday is solidly conservative. He is running in the 9th Congressional District (not my district). I spoke to some of his supporters and campaign workers. I wanted to speak to Mr. Postma but it was so crowded at the indoor event that I could not get to him without exacerbating my claustrophobia and getting too warm. They really needed a much larger space. Mr. Posta opposes cap-and-trade, which I see as the most important issue that will probably still be before congress. He is in favor of developing our own energy sources. He would try to cut taxes and end the various government spending so-called stimuli.

Mr. Charles Kelly Creso is running for the Port of Tacoma Board of Commissioners. I do not know if he is an independent, Libertarian, or even a Democrat; I do not believe he would identify himself as a Republican, but he is honest and energetic. He ran for City Council not long ago and he is well known to that body as someone who holds them accountable. His family has been in Tacoma for at least four generations but he isn't in any old boy network. He will not rubber stamp any proposal whether from environmentalists or from a deep pockets port tenant. He does his research. (Would he every oppose the international longshoreman's hooligans society? -- I do not really know, but then who can oppose them? I am not any kind of expert on that question, but longshoreman have always seem to me to have too much clout.) Kelly will do his best for the port, the city, and the region.

As I look through the voter's pamphlet, I see Mr. Richard "Dick" Muri running for the Pierce County Council, District No. 6. I believe that he will hold down tax increases as much as possible. Although he has a masters degree in environmental science, which makes him suspect in my book, he states that his knowledge will help ensure legislation is based upon valid science. I do like scientists and I am glad to see several candidates with scientific backgrounds. Up until the global warming scam, I always thought that sciences teach logical analysis. Many college students avoid science because they rightly believe that they don't have the intellect. They study psychology, sociology, journalism, political science, or education instead. Apparently, they have also infiltrated atmospheric science.

Apropos to my lack of electoral knowledge, I see that I made two errors in my post of yesterday. The RINO actually supported the Democrat when she dropped out. Can you beleive that? Also it was in New York not New Jersey. It's all back east to me.

Still Marching twoard Totalitarianism

I haven't added many new posts lately. There are several reasons for this, mostly because I have already commented on what was happening and much the same continues to happen. I could attempt to discuss matters more in depth, such as explaining theoretically, why communism is bad. This has been done. Unfortunately, BHO and his followers seem to want what is bad for us if it will enhance their power, so why waste my breath?

Regarding the attempted coup by the president of Honduras, it appears that he has temporarily flaunted his nation's laws and gets a second bite of the apple. He is a want-to-be dictator who may soon be installed by the United States. (Something that the left used to dislike until a communist came into power, here and there.) The Hondurans are trying desperately to remain free, in spite of U.S. threats and sanctions. The US press also supported the BHO intervention in Honduran affairs. See my earlier post regarding Zelay's attempted coup, posted July 4. (I note that the same thing happened in Niger, which may have given Manuel Zelay the idea. - We did object to Mamadou Tandja in Niger, but he went ahead anyway. His third, unconstitutional, term starts next month. He dismissed parliament and the high court to stay in power. What does BHO do if his man does that too? Why don't we intervene there? Does BHO like that gangster too? Niger is the second largest uranium producer and may have oil. Remember the yellow cake? That's what Saddam's trade envoy went there for not the oil.)

The political situation here continues about the same: more and more unconstitutional powers usurped by all three branches. There is a dribble of defections in the GCP (Government Controlled Press). The major government organs actually did refuse to attend a press conference from which Fox News was was excluded. The RINOs are also slipping. The New Jersey Republican, who had been endorsed by ACORN, has withdrawn from the congressional special election in favor of the third party conservative, who was endorsed by Her Excellency, Sarah Palin.

Domestic economic affairs continue on their dismal trajectory to a $20 trillion debt. More Deficit spending along with low interest rates got us into the current mess and BHO seems to have no remedy but the hair of the dog that bit us. A new best seller, The Conscience of a Libertarian, spells it out well. While your at it, The Conscience of a Conservative, by Barry Goldwater, is pretty good too. We are still trying to spend our way to prosperity and reflate a popped balloon. Yes we can't.

In addition to not having a whole lot more to say, I am also busy with my new hobby of stamp collecting. This is a good way to learn about history and geography. I will post some photos of Third Reich and USSR stamps that I find interesting. The only current fascist and communist party on the ascendancy, is the HBO cabal. The parallels are numerous and depressing.

(See Bill Cunningham and his small cadre of Renegades on facebook for a good time)

Honduran matter: Latest abut US supported attempted coup: 0http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703399204574508141774783168.html

Hidden Inflation

Because our central bank is pursuing a price stabilization policy, we are not seeing the deflation that we would otherwise. So-called financial experts are saying, "steady as she goes," prices aren't rising, therefore inflation is not a concern. With the current low interest rates and government spending, there is a lot of money flowing into the economy. This is countering the current tendency of people and businesses to be cautious with spending. Lowering price levels is the mechanism by which we get out of a recession. The government is not helping by fighting the flow and intentionally keeping prices fairly level. They are doing this mainly to help the banks, which would continue to lose on real estate if prices fell. (Which would mean more Federal Deposit 'Insurance' payments.)

This is a good example of how government pursues a bad policy to mitigate the results of their past policy of interference. If there were no government deposit insurance, banks would have had to slow down long ago, or else lose deposits. The government could afford to leave them alone if it didn't have to make good the depositor's losses. Now they are just digging a deeper hole. As they say, the first step to getting out of the hole is to stop digging. Loose money leads to business (and local governments) investing in long term capital improvement. That creates the proverbial bridges to nowhere. If the economy can not currently support growth, that investment will not be needed and will be wasted.

The result will probably be a harder landing when we hit bottom. If they shift gears to support the dollar, which they will have to do, interests rates and prices may start to spiral up and BHO and his Fed chief won't be able to do anything about it. If they would have cut taxes and spending a year ago and stuck to it, things would look better by now. At this point, that would still be a good policy. Unfortunately, HBO is still on a spending spree and talking about who to tax to pay for some of it. On top of that, he wants banks to lend more, especially to home buyers. He's like a gambler who wants to keep doubling his bet in the hopes of getting even.

It's time that the Republicans in Congress take every opportunity to say "no more."

Liberty Belle

I found a site that deals with politics and economics in depth and with style.

http://www.piavarma.com/

She has had several articles appear in major business and libertarian websites and publications.

Unmitigated Health Care Disaster

At my job, I work with medical care providers and medical insurance companies on a daily basis. The system is truly overburdened already with excessive rules and convoluted procedures which are intended to comply with sate and federal regulations. (For example the HIPAA -Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, EURISA -Employee Retirement and Security Act, State workers compensation laws, and the state insurance commission regulations.) Any new law, especially federal law, spawns a new bureaucracy and makes plenty of work for thousands of lawyers, (work that they often would prefer not to have to do.) Everything takes longer that it should and costs more that it should.

In spite of the problems, the attorneys, government bureaucrats, care providers, and insurance companies have worked out a system that is far from perfect, but which functions. It has evolved to solve the difficulties in providing and paying for health care. If a new federal medical law is passed, it would create yet another system that is superimposed upon it. The result will be an unmitigated bureaucratic disaster.

When I started this blog, I was going to call it Brave New World, which would be an ironic reference to Aldous Huxley’s book by that name. Actually, Aldous Huxley’s title is an ironic reference to a line from Shakespeare. He was writing about a future society where a totalitarian regime guided by utopian theories of how to change man, creates big mess. In fact a ‘dystopia.’ Mr. Huxley was of course being ironic himself and what he was really talking about was a chicken shit new world. I decided to cut the irony and just call it what it is. See this link to an informative essay about Huxley and Brave New World: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew/context.html A quote from the essay: “Much of his work deals with the conflict between the interests of the individual and society… These themes reached their zenith in Huxley’s Brave New World, published in 1932. His most enduring work imagined a fictional future in which free will and individuality have been sacrificed in deference to complete social stability.” The BHO administration and his Party, Central Committees, Commissars, and propaganda is just what Huxley had in mind.

Robert Reich on Death Panels

Another Obama adviser states that if politicians told the truth to voters one of the items that they would address regarding health care is diminished care for the elderly. So who would decide what is excessive care for an ill elderly? A panel, I would hope. Unfortunately, as I sated before, what they would more likely get is a denial of service from a computer based upon age and diagnosis profile compared to a cost and likely outcome table or algorithm. So Sarah Palin was probably wrong. You won't get a panel only a computer code and a faceless bureaucracy to appeal to. However, for now, it appears that health care/economic adviser to the president, Mr. Reich says you will get less care. The decision may or may not come from a panel, but that is not the point. So Sarah Palin was correct and deserves an apology.

The rest of Mr. Reich's spiel is interesting too, and surprisingly candid and correct. (It is not really fair to call him Robert Third Riech) Hear him:

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=9040

Bill Cunningham's Rating Set To Improve

According to Billy Cunningham on his Sunday radio talk show, he is only number 19 on the Barack Husein Obama [BHO] enemies list. After some of his remarks tonight, I think he may make the top ten. He says that Al Gore is a fake, a fraud, and a farce (also a clown and a sycophant). Jimmy Carter is an old fool and BHO did nothing to deserve the Nobel Prize. He later noted the Nevile Chamberlain was considered for a Nobel Prize just before the start of WWII, which he helped to start by backing down from Adolph Hitler. BHO appears to be an appeaser in like manner.

I note that in some translations of "The Emperor's New Clothes," the fake tailors are awarded a prize for their beautiful work, which no one had the courage to admit they could not see.

Mr. Cunningham talked about BHO organizations ACORN and the Apollo Alliance and the evils inherent therein.

Mr. Cunningham goes on to discuss the past calls from feminists for the resignation of various Republicans and conservatives for sexual contact with younger female employees. (Or even foolish allegations, as in the case of Clarance Thomas.) According to feminists, these relatively innocuous actions were the epitome of exploitation. He asks why the rules are different for liberals such as Bill Jefferson (B. J.) Clinton and Dave Letterman. He also asks why the remarks of Letterman regarding Sarah Palin and her daughters are regarded as OK by feminists and liberals and the press. He asks about the lack of concern about Roman Polanski, of which Oprah says that he was not guilty of rape rape. Mr. Cunningham and his guest, John Ziggler, discuss many other interesting examples.

I wonder about these things. Obviously many feminists are not really concerned about the treatment of women just as many environmentalists are not concerned about the environment. They are using their feigned outrage as a means of advancing their political aims. The press is obviously going along because it supports the same political aims, as does BHO. I should be on that list too.

Tonight on Tabath Smiley

The thesis of the guest is that the evangelical movement (christian radical right) tried to take over the federal government but could only manage to take over the Republican Party. What they want is a theocracy to replace the constitution. Every non-believer would be relegated to second class status, if not executed. Tabatha mainly goes along with it all. They have no capacity for self-reflection and so they rally around Sarah Palin. This of course is very bad for the Republican Party so they should choose leaders more like John McCain and not like Sara Palin. Their Nazis plans are based upon the ideas of Lyndon LaRoush and Adolf Hitler. Tabatha only asks for a few more details. Conclusion: the public should see how radical the Republicans really are, they aren't dead they are the Undead Zombies (where have I heard that?) attacking President Obama's great ideas like government healthcare with their defunct ideology. This is a moment for the Progressives to seize! -- Max Blumenthal, "The American Gomorrah"

I see two things going on here:

1) Liberals getting books published to counter the 20 or 30 recent best seller conservative books. Don't buy the liberal books yet. You can get them at the Dollar Store in a month or so.

2) As their usual prelude to another attack on our liberties, one of the first steps is to accuse the right of exactly what the left has been doing and is going to try to do some more.

Tabatha Smiley says, "Remember, keep the faith."

see more about Tabatha at pbs.org

Why can't I see more about Ludvig von Mises at pbs.org or
Walter Williams or Alan Keyes?

Can We Realy Share the Wealth?

My answer is: No, not without destroying the wealth. Every redistribution plan ultimately does not work. Not in the long run, not in the medium run, or even much beyond today. Analysis of the outcome of plans to redirect economic activity from the free market shows that eventual collapse of any such plan is inevitable. It may not be obvious because a dozen other plans will usually be adopted to correct the outcome of the initial plan but they always result in the same thing: less wealth or impoverishment for everyone and back to the drawing board.

This weekend Les Leopold was on the Coast to Coast radio program. He is the author of "The Looting of America." He is a good spokesman for socialism of the disguised form, as is president Obama and a large segment of his administration. He has all the arguments and is able rhetorically to avoid the tough questions. Ian Pundant, the shows host, did a good job of allowing him enough rope to hang himself. He allowed Mr. Leopold to explain his ideas without the least hint of criticism.

Mr. Leopold's ideas all stem from the notion the there is an unequal distribution of wealth. This is especially true of Wall Street and that inequality is somehow the cause of the last and probably all other market collapses. He says that great wealth leads to a "casino atmosphere." This certainly is in keeping with popular sentiment and may be exactly the kind of argument that leads to the BHO takeover of the financial system. That is essentially what he proposed although in the most veiled terms. He states that Milton Friedman is the most to blame for our current economic troubles because his philosophy led to all of "this deregulation." Again, I ask what deregulation? Also again I ask, how could regulators have helped when it was government policy itself that they would have to regulate? Callers to the talk show program and later the host disputed Mr. Leopold's thesis. His responses revealed him for the well rehearsed snake oil salesman that he is. He asked one caller if he would agree with his various schemes if he could convince him that the great inequality of wealth on Wall Street was what causes collapses in the financial system. He said that his book contained definitive arguments. The caller said that he could never convince him of that and he couldn't convince me either.

(some of Mr. Leopold and friends: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/fear-and-looting-in-ameri_b_208153.htmlhttp://www.expressmilwaukee.com/blog-3834-qa-with-les-leopold-author-of-the-looting-of-ameri.html)

I, like Thomas Jefferson, "have sworn hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." I cannot be convinced that socialism is in some way just or can be beneficial to either the immediate recipient of government largess or to the ones that must be robbed to enable that largess. I agree with the dictums of Frank Chodorov, of the old right. It was written of him in 1952:

"Listening to Mr. Chodorov, you won't
get any meaningless gabble about "Right" and "Left," or "progressive'" and
"reactionary," or liberalism as a philosophy of the "middle of the road." Mr. Chodorov deals in far more fundamental
distinctions. There is, for example, the Chodorovian distinction between social
power and political power. Social power develops from the creation of wealth by
individuals working alone or in voluntary concert. Political power, on the other
hand, grows by the forcible appropriation of the individual's social power."

"People on Our Side: Frank Chodorov"
Mises Daily by John Chamberlain
Posted on 10/5/2009 12:00:00

http://mises.org/story/3741

　

Lack of Consistancey or Just Plain Lying

Paul Krugman says: Bush deficit - bad. Obama deficit - good.

How to understand it all?

see von Mises Institute's recent article http://mises.org/story/3691

The Wanderings of Careless Thought or It's My Blog and I Can Say Whatever I Want

With regard to the last post, it occurs to me that just as St. Thomas subordinates authority and even reason to the traditions of the Catholic church; so too does the elitist environmentalist cabal subordinate reason and tradition to their all encompassing faith in their cause. For this reason, environmentalism has been called a religion. However, like the character of Daedalus in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, when asked, as he refused to serve the Church, had he become a Protestant; we must ask, why would environmentalist refuse to serve one system of beliefs to adopt another that makes no sense?

That is to say that although James Joyce's character abandoned the Church, he believed that, unlike Protestantism, it's teachings formed an internally consistent and logical set of beliefs. Why would he abandon that for the irrational? (His abandonment, I guess goes deeper, the exploration of which is partly what the book is about and a little deep for me) The organization of a free human society naturally forms a means of exchanging goods and services that is logically consistent in its basic tenants and practices. Because our system with division of labor and private property, allows more saving (non-consumption), which becomes the capital goods for further advancement, we call it capitalism (although Marx coined this as a term of derision). So-called revolutionaries have always opposed this system because of the unequal distribution of those goods and services that inevitably results. The second reason that some revolutionaries of today want the downfall of capitalism is that they see it as the root cause of changes for the worse in the flora, fauna, and other endowments of planet earth. However, I assert that neither of these two objections have ever passed the muster of rigorous evaluation. (Which you won't get here either; only musings.)

Revolution is a temporary redistribution followed either by return to the status quo or chaos. Until capitalism is reestablished, the material standard of living of most people suffers. The environmentalist objection seem to imply an ultimate return to a natural state as hunter gatherers. There probably never existed an idyllic natural state as some envision and the proponents only conjure it up because they don't believe that it would actually ever come to pass. For my part, I wouldn't mind a life of hunting and gathering, although it would require an approximately 99% global population reduction. I believe that in the final analysis, the second revolutionary objection collapses into the first. i.e. redistribution of prosperity favoring some particular group of which they consider themselves a part. With their newfound ill-gotten goods, they might build a park or two. Taken to the logical conclusion, the destruction of capitalism could lead to my idyllic hunter gatherer condition. They might need their parks to pitch a tent; they couldn't hack it.

Biggest Fools to Ever Hit the Big Time

St. Thomas Aquinas stated that knowledge comes from three sources: authority, tradition, and reason; with authority being the least reliable. Today, Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times, states that, "Al Gore was right: We can't put climate-change on the back burner." Paul Krugman, based upon what he has written, knows little or nothing about atmospheric science. He repeats the Al Gore and global warming lobby's line. This is different that economics, which he does know something about, but most of what he knows is wrong. About global warming and natural science in general, from the arguments he advances, he knows next to nothing. He merely accepts various conclusions of impending doom on authority. This can never be wise. Personally, I have tried to follow the arguments of the proponents of man-made global warming but those arguments lead nowhere. When it gets to the point of calculating the magnitudes, even estimates to within an order of magnitude, there is nothing but a statement of their conclusions. They claim this comes from their mathematical models that others, possibly even they, do not understand. This is complete and blind acceptance of authority. Moreover, authorities whose motives have been called into question. (See 'emotionalizing', i.e. lying, to save the planet. footnote (1)

Claims like this go on and on until it gets to the point that there is no reason to even read articles like the instant one of Mr. Krugman. It offers no new insight and, other than for reasons of piling on, it seems pointless. It bears repeating the quotation from Bastiat: "This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."
Before I read the article, I wrote a comment on the NY Times website (slightly revised): To Comment in the vein of what passes for deliberative thought today, I will first of all, not read the article, secondly, I will run it through my new and improved 97.265% accurate scientific model, my conclusion:
1) Chickenshit
2) The only fool bigger than Mr. Krugman is Mr. Gore.


1. The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/

BHO Underground Organizations Revealed

Glenn Beck appeared on major network TV interviewed by Katie Couric. Ms. Couric made her name when she interviewed Sarah Palin before the election. Sarah Palin didn't come across too well, especially according to her opponents. On Couric's TV show Glenn Beck made the statement that John McCain would have been worse for the country that Barack Obama. Was he suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome?

Glenn has long claimed to be independent from any political party. He has stated many times that both the Republicans and the Democrats are part of the problem. That's why Mark Levin seldom has much good to say about him. Mr. Levin is definitely of the opinion that the only chance of salvation from BHO is the Republican Party. There is no time for a third party or any similar movement. Mr. Levin does aspire to a 'new' Republican Party, in exactly the same context that Ronald Reagan called for just that.

I hope that Glenn's remarks to Katie Couric will have the affect of attracting attention to his radio and TV program. There are some horrific aspects of the BHO administration that Glenn is bringing to light. His explanations may lack completeness but he is in the process of figuring it out himself. Who really can sort out the ACORN, Apollo Alliance, TIDE, HUD, SEIU, etc. connections when those connections were intentionally hidden. There apparently are dozens of semi-secret, underground organizations that have seemingly legitimate front groups. The front groups receive government funds and non-profit status while furthering the aims of their underground controllers. George Soros, according to Glenn (and a lot of others) is behind most of it. The aims of these underground orginizations is unadultarated communism.

By the way, we do not want communism and all that it implies. If you do not know what it implies, there is much written on the subject. You should find out before we give it a try. It took the USSR 70 years to unwind so far and they still have a ways to go. (It took tens of millions dead too in case you hadn't heard.)

I certainly don't get it but I know I don't like it. I hope people with the time and resources will dig deep in this manure pile. People who understand the politics, history, and methods of communism could have fun with this. Mostly, they need to keep talking. The BHO organization will of course not sit still but will counter attack. The alternative press is bound to be the next target number one.

See the following:

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/09/video_glenn_bec_3.php

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/09/video_glenn_bec_3.php

George Was Right

My mom told me that her dad, George, used to read about the New Deal every morning in the newspaper. After reading the headlines, his comment was always similar: "Look what that son of a bitch is doing now!" My mom said she was twelve before she knew that the president's name was not 'that son of a bitch.' With the Internet and talk radio, George would really be upset today. Just think of all the news about FDR's new deal he didn't know because it was not printed in the newspaper. However, compared to the newspapers of today, I am sure that the news medial of the 1930's was honest and helpful. Thank God we have alternative outlets for the truth today. We would all be in Obama Squads (or the gulags) by now if the Government controlled Press [GCP] was the only non-governmental bulwark of the republic.

Pay Now and Pay Later for Gov Helathcare

Any bill that passes will require insurance companies to cover more and not deny applicants with existing coverage. Won't that mean that the cost of health insurance will go up? There will also be government subsidized insurance for those who cannot afford it. Doesn't that mean that taxes will go up?
Currently, I and most others have clanged to insurance policies that offer less coverage (as little as current State law allows) and high deductibles. Currently, those who cannot afford coverage qualify for means tested Medicaid (as congress gave us to solve this problem the last time around). Anyone who really needs medical care can receive it. If they do not pay the bill, providers can collect in the usual ways. If they go bankrupt, then they must have assets that they needed to protect, so why couldn't they have used their assets to purchase insurance?
Sounds to me like another government program to:
1) give us some benefit that is available on the free market but that is not what we choose to spend our money on. That is, higher levels of coverage or any insurance at all for some.
2) provide for those we cannot afford care -- which we already have.
There are thousands of "Free Market" improvements in the system that can be made, which mostly involve undoing what we have already done.
I was going to list links, but you can Google "Free market health care" as well as I can.

Post Office Says It Can't Compete

The US Postal Services asks congress for another 1.4 Billion to pay retirement pensions that they owe. By the way, social security also says that they will be spending more that they take in by next year.

Obama says that his healthcare system will compete like the post office with the private companies. His hero F. D. Roosevelt brought us Social security knowing full well that it was a ponzie scheme. But who really cares, so long as the government keeps giving us stuff, that's the important thing: Vote Democrat to keep it coming!

Biden not Dead Yet

Vice President Biden stated a while back that if the stimulus program that he oversees failed, he would be [politically?] dead. He reported today that it has succeeded 'beyond his wildest dreams.'

Revolution's Progress

Many items in the news lately regarding issues important to Americans.

1) President Barack Obama: Naive-in-Chief, stunning clulessness, and insults to America-- London Times
Today another BHO speech to UN: Nuclear disarmament and lecturing. (I didn't actually hear the speech but I am sure it contained lecturing.) Some nuclear enforcement ideas are good if directed at the problem areas but goal of world without nuclear weapons is deceivingly idiotic, like gun control.
In the 1930's there was a multilateral international agreement to ban war. WWII followed soon after.
Gordon Brown, PM was good, Sarcosie, French President, was great. Great Britain says they will scrap one of their four nuclear armed subs. Who cares, but a bad symbolic statement.

BHO foreign policy abandons Poland, Checz Republic, Israel, UK, and Honduras
Supports Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, and Russia

2) Glen Beck v. Republican party. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, says Glenn. Yes, the R's we supported were a disappointment in the recent past. They not only reached across the isle, but they ran over and sat on the Demo's laps and gave em a big kiss on the cheek. But there are degrees of insanity. Creating a third party or similar movements have always been very disastrous in the past. The left has a circus of clowns. We need one too and there is room in the Republican tent for Glen.

3) Ongoing press difficulties. Freedom v. the G.C.P. (Government Controlled Press). Why are the primary news media having financial trouble? The market for drivel is saturated and only outlets for truth are in low supply.

4) Pending hazardous legislation: Health care (for yet another free market solution, see: http://mises.org/3699 Is Emergency Care a Failed Market: by Eric M. Staib; 9/24/09), Wall Street regulation/take over (back burner now but just wait; RINO please say no to this), Global Warming still the worst of the worst. The unwitting and otherwise compliance of the press and environmental groups is the only way this monstrous idea could survive. We really need some light on this to expose it for what it is. Speaking of exposing, what about ACORN and allied groups: an interlocking spider web of corruption, crime, and communism. As such, congress should cut back their government funding to only a few hundred million: honor among thieves.

Lying to Save the Planet

Lying to save the planet has obviously been a tactic of environmentalist and one of them fessed up. On the Peter Weisback radio show out of Seattle today an environmentalist leader was interviewed by a fellow with a British accent. Actually it was more of a cross examination; he didn't let up until the witness admitted that he did not believe that the Arctic would really be ice free by 2030 as he had stated science had revealed. The interviewer pointed out that the Greenland Icecap was about 1.5 million square miles and three miles thick. After trying to dodge five or six questions, the environmentalist stated that it was sometimes a good idea to emotionalize the issue. The interviewer stated that these were scare tactics. Weisback said that what he meant by 'emotionalizing' was he sometimes lied to advance the policy agenda of global warming. This has been rather obvious for a long time but the press, according to Mr. Weisback, continues to regurgitate what the environmentalists feed them. That has also been obvious for a long time.

New Target for Hate and Takeover: Wall Street

A method of the revolutionary left seems to be to accuse conservatives and Republicans of some imaginary wrong, then some time later, they actually do what they had accused the conservatives of doing. Then when they are confronted, their defence essentially is: Bush did it first. Aside from being intellectually repugnant on several levels, this is generally a lie. Is it that we are so jaded by hearing the fraudulent complaints of the left, that like Pontus Pilot, we ask, "what is Truth?"

We have heard for the last eight years all kinds of bizarre accusations directed against the Republicans of how they are attempting to control the population by imposing their Farwellian, fundamentalist morality. Aside from the fact that Christianity has retreated so far, that we are at last putting up a feeble defense of the last two or three percent of our former territory, I would say, "who cares?" I do not see our freedoms currently under any serious threat from the Christian right. On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see and with the slightest sense should realize that the left, under President Barack Husein Obama [BHO] with the aid of the leftest congress and liberal press, are currently a great threat to our liberties.

BHO's attack on Wall Street is the latest attempt to gain more power over the institution of this nation. It should be clear, based upon recent similar tactics, that the anti-Wall Street propaganda coming directly from BHO is the harbinger of another take-over attempt. I hope he is stopped. Unfortunately, the public hears only one side. They know about the excesses of Wall Street executives and they have heard over and over that they are the sole culprits responsible for the present and all other economic downturns. On the contrary, government economic intervention itself has been and remains the main culprit. Capitalism, the free market, and our complicated financial system has been responsible for the greatest advances in the history of humanity. Its abundant shortfalls, as aforesaid, are chiefly the fault of government intervention.

There are also dishonest people. We should be protected from them by the police powers of the government. Fraud is an ever present danger, which in fact could probably be avoided by the unimpeded functioning of a free market better that is is by the government. BHO's covetousness of the productive forces of this nation far exceeds the mere policing of sharp business practices. Unfortunately, the results of government failings in detection of fraud along with problems created by intervention in financial markets by government, is not even an issue under discussion. Instead, big business and industry along with their needed financial system are blamed for all our ills and are currently under threat of destruction from BHO. This is madness and chickenshit of the highest order.

How to for Revolution - Some Tips to Try

"When it comes to revolution, one cannot mark time; one must always go forward -- or go back. He who now talks about the 'freedom of the press' goes backward, and halts our headlong course toward Socialism." -- V. I. Lenin

Representative Wilson Should Appologise Some More

It is important that members of the congress not interrupt speakers to point out that they are lying or none will ever get through a sentence.

One Debacle at a Time Please

While we have two of the worse legislative proposal before us in health care and energy, that is cap-and-trade, the Obama regime is now again talking about a proposal to 'regulate' the financial industry. Are they trying to finesse one or the other of these horrors past us if they cannot get them all? Is it a distraction move? A few things that we have learned from the recent history of this administration should prepare us to meet the coming onslaught.

The Federal Administration and its allies in congress will not offer a definitive proposal for a while, if ever. (Just as they do not offer a definitive health care plan and as the Man Made Global Warming Theory is never spelled out in total.) That will allow them to disavow and deny any accusation that some particularly repugnant scheme is part of their proposal, just as they do with health care. As with Global Warming, it will be hard to attack their proposals on grounds of economic theory, since they really won't have a proposal. It will morph depending upon the audience they are trying to persuade.

However, just because they do not tell their plans does not mean that they do not have any. Thanks to talk radio, we have heard several speeches given by Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress over the last few years to their close constituent organizations. They say that they want single government payer health care. They do not want any part of our current system. They told their friendly audiences that they may have to accept some employer provided insurance for a while, but eventually Party organizers can deliver full-blown socialized medicine. It is the same way with financial 'regulation'. What he really wants is to take control of the financial system.

At first he will say that he proposes a 'consumer protection agency' to save us from the abuses of Wall Street. The actual bill that they eventually produce when the time is ripe, will have been long in the works. Every socialistic central planning and control mechanism that has been discredited over the last two hundred years will be represented. It will be written by the likes of Van Jones communist activists, Noam Chomsky communist academics, Paul Krugman communist economists (this latter one is in disguise), and all kinds of just plain communists that we have not heard of yet. There are plenty of communist 'scholars' waiting in the wings and biting at the bit to get control of as much as they can. Wall Street would certainly be a big coup.

On the other side are the conservatives: economist, wall street businessmen, politicians, historians, and legitimate scholars who can be ignored because they have been so discredited by the press. They tells us that it is government regulation that causes economic downturn. They ask how regulation could have made any difference in the mortgage meltdown, when industry was doing just as government wanted it to do. Would the regulator have said to congress, "no Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Mr. Franks, Mr. Dodd, if you make a law like that it will lead to risky loans and excess speculation. No Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Bernanke, you can't do that or it will lead to malinvestment of our precious limited resources in a bubble that will ultimately burst and destroy capital." Any such regulator would soon be out of a job. Banks were led by congress to make loans that they thought better of and fined if they refused. They attempted to protect themselves with 'insurance' (derivatives) but you can't protect yourself when everyone, even the 'insurers' go broke. (As they always do when the bubble bursts.) When things went wrong the banks were blamed.

That and a lot more is inconvenient history that the current administration is allowed to ignore. At the time they dismissed their own responsibility by saying, "there's plenty of blame to go around." I believe it was Rush Limbaugh who said, "when a Democrat says there is plenty of blame to go around, you can bet that their share was about 95%."

Another example that is often heard is that the 'massive' banking deregulation of the Reagan and Bush administrations was obviously a mistake. When you ask just what deregulation they mean, one thing you often hear is the repeal of Glass Stiegal. This allowed financial firms to diversify: it allowed banks to underwrite securities as investment banks do and investment banks and brokers to accept deposits as regular banks do. However, in the mortgage meltdown, the banks got into trouble by acting as banks and the brokerages and investment firms by acting as such. The Glass Steigal Act was mostly irrelevant. The largest mortgage players, Fanny May and Freddie Mac behaved just as always, they were not affected by Glass Steigal. They were a creation of congress and did congress's bidding. They, along with the Fed, were the primary instigators of the meltdown. They were not regulated by government because, effectively, they were government. So who will regulate the regulators Mr. President? Another practice that they mention is short selling, which in fact is economically beneficial in that it warns investors of coming problems, which will help to remedy those problems in time. Other systematic problems in capital markets, too numerous and depressing to mention, all followed from the implementation of government plans.

The people who know the least about finance, (who manage the Post office, Social Security, Amtrack, Medicare Medicaid, government pension insurance, deposit insurance... all essentially bankrupt), now want to further regulate the financial industry. It is already regulated so much, there is not much more they can do except take it over. That is what they want to do, and may end up doing. They may not have their name on the deeds right away, but they will call the shots, which amounts to the same thing. On our side, we have an informed public, who will be hard to bamboozle, even though they will surely try. They will lie and most of the press will back them up. We have talk radio (one of their next targets) and we have Tea Parties and we had some great town meetings. We have the constitution still and we have the truth.

Can You Imagine?

…and so they stopped and rested on a rock conveniently low
And all the little oysters stood and waited in a row.

“The time has come,” the Walrus, said, “to talk of many things,
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and Kings
And why the sea is boiling hot and weather pigs have wings.”

-- Lewis Carol, Through the Looking Glass

Which is to say, time to get down to the nitty gritty. A socialist in name only, president Barack Obama, knows instinctively which side the bread is buttered on. He came out today with renewed attacks on special interests. Of course, he is referring to special special interests, that is, those not already in his camp. That would currently be the health care insurance companies. He is definitely not talking about General Electric, which is on the global warming gravy train. He is not talking about the United Steel Workers, whose boss he made a Commissar and which, along with other construction industries, are economic stimulus payees. Apparently he doesn't mean big drug makers or ARRP or the AMA. He is certainly not talking about auto, banking, political action groups, community organizers, or government unions who he are in his back pocket ( or his front pockets since the back ones are overflowing). There’s hardly anyone or anything left to threaten or pay off, except for us, the regular taxpayers of this country.

However, and unfortunately for him and most professional politicians, at the town halls and tea parties, the people have spoken. What they said is not necessarily what any one person or faction has said or would say. Nevertheless, what they said is clear. They want change but not BHO’s kind of change. They want actual accountability and openness, not the kind promised but never delivered by politicians of any party or any era. What they want most of all is the end of a corrupt system that they see as enriching the political and corporate participants at their expense.

What they complain about goes by many names: corruption and payoffs come to mind; but also executive bonuses, bail-outs, stimulus packages, campaign contributions, and earmarks are on their hit list. The later are openly the stock and trade of the professional politician. Governor Blaggovich was a prime example of the former: the corrupt politician par excellance. He made no excuses for selling office. Charlie Wrangle, currently under investigation by congress, is a current example of political corruption of the ‘look the other way, wink and a nod’ variety. That is, everyone knows it and ‘every one does it type’. He took it a little too far so he has to wear the scarlet ‘C’. If he isn't reelected, he probably has a lobbyist job waiting. However, maybe, just maybe, at long last and finally, the informed and sovereign voter is saying no more to the pervasive and systematic spoil system that is our political system from top to bottom.

This would be real change. The lobbyist and campaign contribution is the live blood of the current system. How to change without creating something worse has always been the difficulty. Can you imagine no lobbyists, non-millionaire congress members, citizen legislators?

It is hard to imagine a no lobbyists system because of the informational roll they play. Legislation regarding major segments of commerce is too complicated for anyone not in that segment of commerce to understand. What congress has been giving us are 1,000 plus page monstrosities that are written by corporate lobbyists or by the most partisan elements of the party in power.

(Foot note: Of course it seems to me that it is mostly the Democrat party that does this. See the stimulus package that was written by communist Van Jones and contains huge grants for radical Party activists. Compare that to the Patriot Act. The worse the Democrats seem to have found in that bill is powers to eavesdrop on terrorist communication, powers law enforcement already had regarding organized crime. By the way, it recently occurred to me that there probably was actual communication of domestic political groups that they definitely did not want heard. It wasn't just an intellectual exercise in free speech for some of the left.)

These massive omnibus bills generally provide specifically for preemption of state law. That means the laws passed by our state representatives and the common law developed over centuries by the give and take of our court system can be wiped out by the stroke of a pen in Washington. If a faction, whether a group with some political clout or an industry group represented by lobbyists, has their ambitions stymied by state law, they can resort to federal legislation. Of course it helps to have cooperative federal judges. This is in fact becoming the favored modus operandi of some political and industry groups. (i.e. environmentalists with just about everything they want; and yes, the insurance industry and medical lobbies as with the EISA and HIPAA.) Sometimes these laws impose massive regulation, sometimes they free some practices from federal and/or state regulation. Sometimes they put roadblocks in the way of redress of grievances. As stated elsewhere in this blog, this type of action is not necessarily what is meant by free market economic policies, although there are some who hide their sharp business practices behind that claim.

If there were no lobbyist for special interests, what would fill the power vacuum? Could we trust the press, the lawyers, and communistic Party Commissars of Barack Obama to give us a legitimate representative democracy? The founders of this nation could imagine a democracy and they embodied it into the framework and checks and balances of the constitution. (The Commissars probably do not fit in that framework, a free press does, and lawyers and our jury system will always be needed to fight against self serving bureaucratic regulation in government and industry.) The constitution has been called an imperfect document. Ben Franklin said that the constitution gave us a republic, if we could keep it. Thomas Jefferson said that every generation had to protect and earn their freedom or they would lose it. So I guess that is the best we can do. It has served us well so far; we had better busy ourselves with keeping it. What to do with the likes of ENRON, Van Jones, ACORN lobbyists, GE lobbyists, Oil lobbyists, Green Peace lobbyists... We must exercise discrimination, judgement, and common sense. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Lyndon LaRouche Youth Activists Have a Plan Too

I talked to one of them and received a DVD and two magazines for a contribution. The DVD stopped working after about an hour just when the narrative got up to the present and I was wondering what happens next. I do not know but will find out one way or the other.

This group does not like BHO policies, especially health care at the moment. I have to like that. They say that the HMO's were the beginning of the problems for health care. The bankers' main ploy apparently, is to entice us and government to spend beyond our means. That makes sense to me too, but I didn't know it was an organized conspiracy. They do not like England because the global elite bankers are mostly from there. I do not know about that and do not think I will ever find out; it's got to be quite secret. It appears that Kaiser Wilhelm caught on but too late. They tricked him into WWI to destroy the German competition. I agree that Germany had a good thing going at the time (although starting down the road to socialism since Bismark), too bad things went wrong. I liked the Czar too, and certainly even the Brits don't trust the Brits. Anyway, they put in Hitler and after many steps and missteps, they arrived at today where they are behind President Obama's plans (the elite bankers that is, not LaRouchites). LaRouche is definitely against those plans and draws a Hitler mustache on Obama's picture to show what he thinks of him. I guess I agree with most of that. By definition, BHO policies are fascist and getting worse.

However, Obama's policies also are communistic, and THAT the LaRouchites do not seem to mind. (I could be wrong.) They think that FDR's policies were putting the bankers in their place until Trueman came along and put them back in charge. (Actually, under this conspiracy model, wasn't FDR's spending spree creating more debt for the global bankers to finance?) Mr. LaRouche seems to be pro organized labor too. Going along with Mr. LaRouche sounds a little bit like out of the frying pan into the fire. After JFK, whose contribution to the plot was to get assassinated,which was such a bummer it put the 60's generation into a suicidal death spiral, came a lot of financial schemes that robbed us more and more. Nixon took our gold, then finally we collapsed, but we do not quite know it yet.


I guess what they say we get next is Weimar style hyperinflation. I guess I should take what is left of my IRA out of stock mutual funds and put it into gold. (There isn't much else that would escape, right?) Mr. LaRouche's current plan of survival is to grant bankruptcy like protection to banks (only "legitimate" banks, apparently not the international elite ones) and mortgage holders. We could stop paying our mortgage payments to the banks but the banks would be OK since they would not have to pay anyone either. If only I could call Glenn Beck, maybe he could explain all this.